Breach of Contract and Damages

Decent Essays

According to the parol evidence rule, if a term has been breached, the unhappy party; in this case Derrick, can sue the other party; Susie. In the contract between Susie and Derrick, the shipping container weight was not specified. This means it is not a term of the contract. When Derrick asked Susie about the weight of the shipping container, Susie ensured Derrick the shipping container weighted less than 2 tonnes; this is not a term as it wasn’t stated in the contract, but is a collateral contract as it is a promise and not consisted with the contract. The shipping container weighted 2.7 tonnes, which damaged Derrick’s truck. It is unclear whether in the contract an exemption clause was stated on if the truck was damaged. An exception to the parol evidence rule shows the contract had shown inconsiderable behaviour by not stating how much the shipping container weighted as well as the false statement by Susie when she was ask about the weight of the shipping container. In the De Lassalle v Guildford case, of similar issue, there was a lease agreement, which had been signed. In the agreement nothing was stated about the drains. De Lassalle asked before signing the contract and Guildford stated there were no worries, but the house flooded. De Lassalle sued Guildford by using the collateral contract made before signing the contract as evidence. In the case between Derrick and Susie, as the assurance of how much the shipping container weighed was stated after the contract had

Get Access